ArticleSpine deformity2024
Decisional regret following corrective adult spinal deformity surgery: a single institution study of incidence and risk factors.
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychologic readiness for adult spinal deformity surgery: practical screening and optimization pathways.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: techniques and outcomes.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the characteristics and risk factors for decisional regret following corrective adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery at our hospital.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of a single-surgeon ASD database. Adult patients (> 40 years) who underwent ASD surgery from May 2016 to December 2020 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included (posterior-only, ≥ 4 levels fused to the pelvis) (n = 120). Ottawa decision regret questionnaires, a validated and reliable 5-item Likert scale, were sent to patients postoperatively. Regret scores were defined as (1) low regret: 0-39 (2) medium to high regret: 40-100. Risk factors for medium or high decisional regret were identified using multivariate models.
resultsNinety patients were successfully contacted and 77 patients consented to participate. Nonparticipants were older, had a higher incidence of anxiety, and higher ASA class. There were 7 patients that reported medium or high decisional regret (9%). Ninety percentage of patients believed that surgery was the right decision, 86% believed that surgery was a wise choice, and 87% would do it again. 8% of patients regretted the surgery and 14% believed that surgery did them harm. 88% of patients felt better after surgery. On multivariate analysis, revision fusion surgery was independently associated with an increased risk of medium or high decisional regret (adjusted odds ratio: 6.000, 95% confidence interval: 1.074-33.534, p = 0.041).
conclusionsAt our institution, we found a 9% incidence of decisional regret. Revision fusion was associated with increased decisional regret. Estimates for decisional regret should be based on single-institution experiences given differences in patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.